Who Has "The Burden of Proof"??

reply to post by BlueRaja


Well, those agencies are most definetly controlled by the NWO. But down to the last man, no. You see the last man has no authority to question such things. Rank and file keeps people from sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. Remember, several FBI field agents had tried to alert higher ups about the terrorists training at flight schools around the USA, but no one listened.

reply to post by percievedreality


Whatever excercises that were going on, most certainly weren't putting false targets on civilian ATC screens. No fighters were sent to Canada, and the plane that crashed in PA was heading towards DC, not NY.
The fact is that on 9/11 only 14 fighters were on alert status in the entire CONUS. This wasn't because they were ordered to stand down. It was because post Cold War, the major threat was intercepting suspected drug smugglers, not Russian bombers or hijacked airliners. The fighters that did get airborne, initially got sent to the ADIZ(off the coast), as there was confusion as to where their targets were. The military radars were oriented outward, as they weren't expecting their targets to originate within the CONUS, and the ATC system wasn't set up to easily vector intercepts on planes without operating transponders. What was witnessed was weaknesses in security, not duplicity.

reply to post by percievedreality


I hope you have more evidence than somebody didn't listen to somebody else, in saying the agencies are definitely controlled by the NWO.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Whatever excercises that were going on, most certainly weren't putting false targets on civilian ATC screens. No fighters were sent to Canada, and the plane that crashed in PA was heading towards DC, not NY.
The fact is that on 9/11 only 14 fighters were on alert status in the entire CONUS. This wasn't because they were ordered to stand down. It was because post Cold War, the major threat was intercepting suspected drug smugglers, not Russian bombers or hijacked airliners. The fighters that did get airborne, initially got sent to the ADIZ(off the coast), as there was confusion as to where their targets were. The military radars were oriented outward, as they weren't expecting their targets to originate within the CONUS, and the ATC system wasn't set up to easily vector intercepts on planes without operating transponders. What was witnessed was weaknesses in security, not duplicity.

First off, you are dead wrong with your first statement, they most certainly did introduce false targets on CIVILIAN radar. Do some more research, as this has been documented, I am not sure why you seem to believe otherwise.

Once again you are wrong, as there was numerous war games being played that day. Collectively, this meant that most of the US fighter aircraft were either in Canadian airspace or STANDING DOWN (in our airspace) on 9/11 as at least one of the wargame scenarios involved the switching of red and blue teams. (US Canada) Having completed the previous game in June of 2001, where the roles of the "teams" were completly reversed in which Canada had stood down in their own Canadian airspace, letting the US respond to the "threat".

As to the rest of your comments, yes I know about the 14 fighters that were on alert that day. (the ones that were spared from the ongoing war games!) I know they (2) headed out over the Atlantic upon takeoff unsure of their targets, but the part about "because post Cold War, the major threat was intercepting suspected drug smugglers, not Russian bombers or hijacked airliners.", is not the truth. It was due to the war games going on, not the current state of the Cold War! More government bs that people are seemly buying hook, line and sinker without any verification!

Do some research on these war games and you will see that is wasn't truely "weaknesses in security" or "incompetence" but was "duplicity", as it was planned out to coincide and give a window of "weakness in security" by way of confusion so the mission could be accomplished. Remember, the subway bombings in Madrid, (and you should know this, if you really have fully research 9/11) also during war games involving the exact scenario, terrorist bombings of the subway.

So you tell me, Al-Quida, somehow gained access to that information related to these war games and planned them to coincide, or the governments who had planned them in the first place, used them knowing that by way of confusion, weakness in security could be accomplished. I pick the latter.

Sorry having trouble embedding vid....
[edit on 27-2-2008 by Leo Strauss]

[edit on 27-2-2008 by Leo Strauss]

[edit on 28-2-2008 by Leo Strauss]

[edit on 28-2-2008 by Leo Strauss]

Originally posted by percievedreality

First off, you are dead wrong with your first statement, they most certainly did introduce false targets on CIVILIAN radar. Do some more research, as this has been documented, I am not sure why you seem to believe otherwise.

I'd love to see the source showing that false targets were given to civilian ATC centers, who are responsible for thousands of civil aircraft and their safety.

As to the rest of your comments, yes I know about the 14 fighters that were on alert that day. (the ones that were spared from the ongoing war games!) I know they (2) headed out over the Atlantic upon takeoff unsure of their targets, but the part about "because post Cold War, the major threat was intercepting suspected drug smugglers, not Russian bombers or hijacked airliners.", is not the truth. It was due to the war games going on, not the current state of the Cold War! More government bs that people are seemly buying hook, line and sinker without any verification!

14 alert fighters that are fueled and armed with live weapons. Could you tell me how many other actual fighters were flying that day vs. computer simulations. My point was the number of available alert aircraft was due to the lack of imminent threat from Russian bombers. This is the same reason we don't have nuclear armed bombers airborne 24hrs/day as was the case during the Cold War. I'd love to see evidence that on Sept 10th there was a significantly different number of aircraft available for intercepts. As for my assertion about the military radar vs. civilian radar- I stand by that. At that time military early warning radars were oriented outward, as the threats they were designed to deal with were expected to originate from within CONUS airspace. Civil ATCs could see aircraft with operating transponders, but their systems weren't designed to handle raw radar data simultaneously, for the aircraft flying without transponders turned on. Additionally, there was no SOP for Rules of Engagement, command and control, etc.. for this type of situation, as drug smugglers weren't getting shot down, and no airliner had ever been used as a weapon before. A lot of unprecedented things happened, and people weren't prepared to respond in a timely manner as a result.

Question to jthomas:

What are YOUR claims of what happened on 9/11? And have you given proof of those claims?

So far, I see nothing but you saying "nah, nah, I can't hear you, the burden of proof is on you". Care to prove me wrong. Thanks.

Posted by BlueRaja

I'd love to see the source showing that false targets were given to civilian ATC centers, who are responsible for thousands of civil aircraft and their safety.

I don't believe you. I've you really would "love to see the source", YOU would make the effort to find it as I have done. No, I am not going to provide you the link, because honestly, it has been sometime since I found such information in my personal investigation. It is out there somewhere for you to find. Unless it has been deleted from the public records by now, which is possible. Guess I need to go back and confirm what I found. I may do this for me and only in the interest that it has since gone missing, but not for you. Make the effort as I have and you will be enlightened (granted you can find it still). And don't say that I am "coping" out, because it is not my fault that Bush and co have been reclassifing information like mad. Good luck, truth seeker!?

Originally posted by Griff
Question to jthomas:

What are YOUR claims of what happened on 9/11? And have you given proof of those claims?

It should be clear that I have no "claims" about what happened on 9/11. I accept the totality of the evidence and investigations as rational, comprehensive, and thorough.

So far, I see nothing but you saying "nah, nah, I can't hear you, the burden of proof is on you". Care to prove me wrong. Thanks.

Sure, that's straightforward. People here are contesting the evidence and the investigations. That's what 9/11 Truthers do of their own free will. That's what they claim to do. That's their mission; they have accepted by default, a priori, the fact that the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that their claims are correct, even though they deny it vehemently. I have no problem asking Truthers to back up claims they make with actual evidence. I'm "just asking questions."

That's fine with me but I have seen nothing in the last six years that remotely can be considered as massive, overwhelming evidence to refute any and all of the investigations.

So, if 9/11 Truthers want a new investigation or to file charges against the "government", who's going to do it for them if they deny the burden of proof is on themselves?

percievedreality


If you cannot provide anything to support your claims, then they are purely your opinion. Nobody else on here has an issue with providing a link, yet for some reason you refuse. Again please show evidence to support the claims that YOU are making. We have.....

[edit on 28-2-2008 by Jeff Riff]

Originally posted by jthomas
So, if 9/11 Truthers want a new investigation or to file charges against the "government", who's going to do it for them if they deny the burden of proof is on themselves?

I really do understand where you are comming from. It's just that you have been ignoring people who DO come with proofs. Steven Jones comes to mind. Are you saying that this "truther" hasn't tried to prove his theories?

It gets a little old when you lump everyone into the same mold also and try to discredit us by that same lump. Meaning, just because I question 9/11 doesn't mean I'm a no-planer, pod person, etc.

No offense to any no-planers and pod people out there.

reply to post by percievedreality


Think about it- the military was conducting an excercise, including simulations. Does it even sound reasonable to have active ATC sites being fed false info, where planes could crash into each other, due to an excercise? The civilian side wasn't part of the military excercise. That would be a huge bit of news if ATC centers showed that somebody was putting false info onto their screens.

Originally posted by jthomas
It should be clear that I have no "claims" about what happened on 9/11. I accept the totality of the evidence and investigations as rational, comprehensive, and thorough.

And yet you badger me for 2 days saying I have to come up with proof of my claims when I have never claimed anything. Other than that I DON"T accept the totality of the evidence and investigations as rational, comprehensive and thorough.

BTW, I've already given you a few examples of why I feel this way.

If you think a half-assed investigation is thorough, so be it. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

reply to post by BlueRaja


Okay, here is some infomation I found related to this topic...

The military and the FAA share the same radar sources in most places. The FAA takes this radar and filters out most of the ground clutter. The military has to do the opposite, they increase this amount of ground clutter, they have to be able to see everything.

Thus he concedes that there could have been false blips on the military scopes, though not on the FAA’s scopes. Of course this doesn’t prove that there were false blips on NEADS’s scopes on 9/11/2001, but it remains a possibility. If indeed there were false blips on NEADS’s radar screens, then perhaps the people looking at those screens might have blamed the false blips on “ground clutter,” or some other source of natural noise, once it was determined that they were not real airplanes.

This is not the proof that I have found before....but, it opens the window for discussion! Sharing hardware systems but having seperate software means nothing. This leaves the possibility that false blips did occur on civilian ATC systems, however it does not proof of disprove it. Just a possible scenario.The article states, that the FAA, nomally filters out the "ground clutter", and how does that work? Is it 100% acurate? No way.

If they share the same systems, then, no, it is not unrealistic to believe that false radar blips were also introduced into the civilian ATC system that day, even at the risk of "planes crashing into one another". They may have been read as real objects or ground clutter. I do think it is also unrealistic to say that the military exercises did not extend into the civilian sector that day. The civilian sector and military were supposed to be working on coordination in response to the scenarios that the war games being engadged in that day introduced. That is one of the main reason why they play these war games, to ensure coordination in response, reqardless of what agency, civilian or military!

I will keep looking for the "real" proof I know I saw way back when. If I recall correctly, it was actual testimony from a CIVILIAN ATC person that indeed at several points on 9/11 his/her radar was showing false entities (that were being introduced into the systems as part of the war games taking place). I will continue to look though, since people are now saying I am the one making this claim and it is my responsibility to support it. I don't agree with that as this has been discussed (ie previously claimed, not by me!) in the past, just a rehash if you will, nothing new. But that isn't good enough for some of you, so I will continue my quest to prove it to you.

Link to above information here.





[edit on 28-2-2008 by percievedreality]

reply to post by percievedreality


Ground clutter can be filtered electronically, by setting certain gain thresholds, removal of anything travelling below certain speeds, etc...
The military may be able to share info with civil ATC sites, but that doesn't mean that they're putting false info on ATC sites, trying to mislead civil controllers. I think what you're talking about is the data civil air controllers see vs. raw radar data. ATC screens show aircraft locations based upon transponder data. If you turn off the transponder, you'll disappear from their screen. The problem they had was when the ATC folks tried to ID the planes using raw radar data, trying to discriminate from the hijacked planes and the normal traffic became confusing, because the radar screen doesn't show the transponder IDs, just a bunch of blips. They had to figure out which blips were the ones they were interested in. They had very little reaction time to accomplish that task, and hence the ordering of all air traffic to land.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
If you turn off the transponder, you'll disappear from their screen.

This is actually a false statement. They would not disappear from the screen. Just the transponder information would disappear. The blip would still be there.

How hard is it to track something that you had been tracking but just turned off it's transponder? Why can't you just follow the blip? The blip would still be there.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
So, if 9/11 Truthers want a new investigation or to file charges against the "government", who's going to do it for them if they deny the burden of proof is on themselves?

I really do understand where you are comming from. It's just that you have been ignoring people who DO come with proofs. Steven Jones comes to mind. Are you saying that this "truther" hasn't tried to prove his theories?

You know as well as I do that 9/11 Truthers here have persistently denied that the burden of proof is on them. Just review the posts in these threads if you forgot.

And your claim that Steven Jones has proved anything at all is nothing more than your claim and your belief. By any standard that science works[, he hasn't proven anything; he's posited several hypotheses and nothing more. No peer review, nothing. You must know that. And just how do you think HE will get a new investigation?

It gets a little old when you lump everyone into the same mold also and try to discredit us by that same lump. Meaning, just because I question 9/11 doesn't mean I'm a no-planer, pod person, etc.

You'll note if you read my post more carefully that I never once mentioned "you." And when I use "9/11 Truthers" or "9/11 Truth Movement" I am using the term they gave themselves as the political movement that insists the government was either behind 9/11 or let it happen and either wants a new investigation or wants to file criminal charges against the "government". And that includes Steven Jones, Fetzer, et al even when they fight amongst themselves about whether it was impossible for the towers to fall without explosives or space beams did them in.

I addressed your post and demonstrated once again where the burden of proof lies.

Originally posted by jthomas
You'll note if you read my post more carefully that I never once mentioned "you."

Momentary lapse of reason?

Let's begin at the beginning.

originally posted by jthomas

I think everyone here is well aware that you hate the fact that burden of proof is on you to prove your case and back up your claims and assertions.

If you had actually bothered to read my post, I made it clear that:

"The 9/11 Truth Movement has failed to do that and continues to avoid the fact that the burden of proof rests on its shoulders. That is just one of many reasons the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is known by the more apt name: the 9/11 Denial Movement."

Now, do you want to continue to deny that the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, Griff, or will you face the reality that it is incumbent on YOU to prove your case?

Which will it be, Griff?

Sounds like you were addressing me, now doesn't it?

Originally posted by Griff

If you think a half-assed investigation is thorough, so be it.

Is that the one you say you don't have to provide evidence for because the "laws of physics are on your side?"

So, tell me, Griff, just what do you want? A public flogging of the several hundred independent structural engineers, forensic scientists, architects, and physicists who were asked to be part of the investigation and put their own credibility, businesses, and reputations on the line as well as their signatures?

Do you want to tar and feather them and make them cry chicken and say the towers could not fall from impact and fire damage and they were made to lie?

Do you want a new investigation?

Just what DO you want, Griff?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
You'll note if you read my post more carefully that I never once mentioned "you."

Momentary lapse of reason?

Let's begin at the beginning.

originally posted by jthomas

I think everyone here is well aware that you hate the fact that burden of proof is on you to prove your case and back up your claims and assertions.

If you had actually bothered to read my post, I made it clear that:

"The 9/11 Truth Movement has failed to do that and continues to avoid the fact that the burden of proof rests on its shoulders. That is just one of many reasons the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is known by the more apt name: the 9/11 Denial Movement."

Now, do you want to continue to deny that the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, Griff, or will you face the reality that it is incumbent on YOU to prove your case?

Which will it be, Griff?

Sounds like you were addressing me, now doesn't it?

It is certainly NOT the post to which you replied, now is it, Griff? Let me refresh your memory to just what post YOU referred to:

posted on 28-2-2008 @ 12:55 PM single this post edit"quote"REPLY TO:


Originally posted by Griff
Question to jthomas:

What are YOUR claims of what happened on 9/11? And have you given proof of those claims?


It should be clear that I have no "claims" about what happened on 9/11. I accept the totality of the evidence and investigations as rational, comprehensive, and thorough.


So far, I see nothing but you saying "nah, nah, I can't hear you, the burden of proof is on you". Care to prove me wrong. Thanks.


Sure, that's straightforward. People here are contesting the evidence and the investigations. That's what 9/11 Truthers do of their own free will. That's what they claim to do. That's their mission; they have accepted by default, a priori, the fact that the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that their claims are correct, even though they deny it vehemently. I have no problem asking Truthers to back up claims they make with actual evidence. I'm "just asking questions."

That's fine with me but I have seen nothing in the last six years that remotely can be considered as massive, overwhelming evidence to refute any and all of the investigations.

So, if 9/11 Truthers want a new investigation or to file charges against the "government", who's going to do it for them if they deny the burden of proof is on themselves?

Any questions, Griff?

Do you wish to stick to the subject matter, or nitpick?


[edit on 28-2-2008 by jthomas]